1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the defendant's additional documents submitted in the court of first instance, which fall short of the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance, shall be rejected in all evidence No. 30 to No. 34. On the other hand, the defendant's additional claims in the court of first instance are stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, except as otherwise stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be cited by applying the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Defendant asserts that, at least on May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff ratified the content of the notarial deed of this case at least at the time of the Family Council’s Family Council, and accordingly, ratified D’s unauthorized representation by approving the Plaintiff’s debt details against the Defendant.

However, an expression of intent of recognition of execution on a notarial deed is an act of litigation by a notary public as a sole declaration of intent of an obligor against a joint law office or notary public and prepared in accordance with the method of sexual rule, and thus, an expression of intent of ratification on the recognition of execution among notarial deeds defective in power of representation should be made by a notary public in the way of notarial deeds against a joint law office or notary public, so there is an act of ratification not in

Inasmuch as the act of ratification bears the obligation under the substantive law, the title of invalid debt cannot be valid (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2803, Mar. 24, 2006). Even if the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, knew at the time of the above family conference, approved the content of the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff’s act alone cannot be deemed as valid as the original act of the Plaintiff’s failure to exercise the right of representation.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.